Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Karen's avatar

As a parent of a Citipointe student, I agree that the timing and process of sending out the enrolment contract was terrible.

But I was happy to sign it. The only new part in the contract was the gender part and I fully support treating students according to their biological sex. I don't want boys in my daughter's bathrooms, bedrooms or sports teams. In this, the school was showing pastoral care for the students.

There was nothing about sexuality in the contract. There was a statement in the Declaration of Faith about sexuality. Parents did not need to agree to that but acknowledge that this is what the school believes. I agree, putting beastiality and paedophilia in the same sentence as homosexuality was insensitive and it could have been worded with more compassion. The school has also acknowledged this and is re-working it. However, I think the school should be applauded for having the guts to make a clear statement and I know the (now ex-) Principal was genuinely wanting to give parents clarity about these murky issues.

The contract was never meant to be used to expel students for being gay or transgender or unsure, despite what the media and lobby groups claimed. I think it was for the school to use if there was deliberate flouting and undermining of these beliefs.

Also, where do the governments get their funds from? From tax payers! I'm sure most of the parents at Citipointe pay a lot of tax as do parents in most Christian schools. If all the private schools closed the government would have to use a lot of "funding" to build new schools, etc.

Things don't get to me very often, but I have been horrified by the death threats, vandalism, megaphone protests outside the kindergarten on their very first day of school.

This school and the staff and students need prayer.

Expand full comment
Colin Barnes's avatar

Hi Mike, do you find the placement of Leviticus 18:23 right after Leviticus 18:22 to be cringy and alarming? Could you expand on your reasoning here? Would both verses fit under the NT term pornea?

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts